1 Corinthians 14:1-25

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul began addressing the problem of spiritual gifts. He begins with a general statement that he desired them to be knowledgeable about these things. Then he focused on the point that all these various gifts were given to the church for the good of the church. These gifts should not be a cause for disunity. (It is strongly implied that this was precisely what was happening--or was in danger of happening--at Corinth.) That's why, in chapter 13, he reminds them that the greatest gift of all is not some talent or ability, but love. From this, we can imagine the situation in Corinth. People were becoming divided because of their spiritual gifts. Most likely, based on everything we know, those members who had more unusual or spectacular gifts were becoming puffed up and putting too much importance on themselves and their place in the church, while, perhaps, those with less impressive gifts were becoming jealous and bitter. Paul's whole argument in chapters 12-13 seems to be aimed at combating such a situation.

And there is a high likelihood that it was one specific gift that was at the center of this debate; one gift that was being especially prized as the greatest gift. And so we get to chapter 14.

This is a very complex and controversial passage, so we are going to approach it in a roundabout way.

Before we get into the subject at hand, there is a point I want to make, both about this passage and Bible study as a whole. Christian language is based on the Bible. And the Bible (in its various translations) is partly influenced by Christian language. However, we must remember that these two things are not always the same. The way a word is used in general Christian speech (or even casual conversation) isn't always the way the word is used in the Bible.

So, for instance, as we talked about back in chapter 11, the word 'church' in modern Christian parlance (or just casual conversation) often refers to a building. But that isn't the way the Bible uses the word, and if you try to interpret Bible passages with the word 'church' meaning what it does in modern language, you'll end up in trouble.

I say all that for this reason. If you are at all familiar with trends in Christian thinking over the last hundred years or so, then you know that the phrase “speaking in tongues” has taken on a very specific meaning. But it does not necessarily follow that this is what the words mean here.

To get at what “speaking in tongues” means, we need to look at the word itself: glossa. Glossa literally means 'tongue', as in the part of the body. By extension, it means a language. For instance, Revelation 5:9: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” In that sentence, 'tongue' means language group—the congregation of the redeemed comes from many different languages. I think 'glossary' (a list of words and their meanings) comes from this.

So 'glossa' means a language. ('Tongue' can be used in English to mean a language as well, as in 'The English Tongue', but this isn't common in modern speech.) In our passage, we have the phrase “an unknown tongue.” But if you are using the KJV, you notice that 'unknown' is in italics, meaning that it was added by the translators. So it would be literally 'speaking in a tongue.' 

From my understanding, as far as the words themselves go, Paul could simply be talking about different languages. Corinth was a diverse place, so very likely, there would be different languages spoken by different Christians. However, given the context, it does seem that something other than that is intended.

We need to keep the overall context in mind. Paul introduced the problem of spiritual gifts in chapter 12. As we said there, most, if not all, of the spiritual gifts Paul addresses are supernatural; they are gifts granted by the direct intervention of God, rather than through the normal channels of heredity and environment. That seems to be in play here, as well. Whatever speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are, they seem to be supernatural gifts, not natural gifts.

As we talked about in chapter 12, many Christians hold to a view called cessationism, which is the belief that the supernatural spiritual gifts were only for the early church and that God does not (as a general rule) give out those gifts today. Under that belief, this entire discussion is somewhat moot because, whatever the gift of tongues was, it is no longer around. However, I think there are some very relevant lessons here, regardless.

But, before we get to 1 Corinthians 14, we have to talk about Acts, because in Acts, this phrase 'speaking in tongues' is also used several times. We'll discuss them in inverse order.

This story takes place in Ephesus, during Paul's 3rd Missionary Journey (probably not long before he wrote 1 Corinthians.) Paul met a small group in Ephesus (presumably men who had been influenced by Apollos) who had only learned the teachings of John the Baptist. Paul taught them the gospel, and they were baptized in the name of Jesus. “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6) We don't really know anything else about this.

Much earlier in the history of the New Testament, God sent Peter to preach to Cornelius, formally beginning the ministry of the church to the Gentiles. And while Peter preached, God interrupted. “And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:45-47) Again, we don't know the details of what happened here. 

We can note in passing that there is some debate about the spiritual event in question in these cases—whether it was salvation, sanctification, both, or neither. For our purposes, it really doesn't matter.

We now come to the most pivotal passage in Acts: the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost. “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:3-4) We see the disciples speaking with other tongues as a direct gift from the Holy Spirit. However, in this case, we can say what happened with more accuracy.

A crowd gathered to hear, and this was the remarkable thing: “And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:7-8) From the verses that follow, we see that there were many languages represented. (These would all have been Jews, but Jews from different places who natively spoke different languages.)

So in this context, speaking in tongues relates to different languages. The way I always pictured it was like this. You have Peter here, speaking in Aramaic. And in the crowd around him, there was, say, a Jew from Rome who heard Peter as if he were speaking in Latin. And you had Jews from Egypt, and they heard him as if he were speaking in Egyptian. And Jews from Turkey hearing him in Turkish, or whatever language they spoke in Turkey at the time. 

And perhaps something similar happened with Cornelius—he and his household would have been speaking in Latin or Greek, and Peter and his companions heard him in Aramaic. And that might also apply to Paul and the disciples in Ephesus, but that feels less likely.

Now let's catalogue what Paul has to say about speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. First, we should be clear that Paul does not deny the existence of the gift of tongues or that it came from God. In verse 2, he says that those speaking in tongues were dealing with mysteries, that is, with the truths of God. In verse 18, he thanks God for the fact that he himself had the gift of tongues, at least sometimes. (This is never mentioned in Acts.)

And yet, for all that, there was a problem with tongues. In verse 2, Paul says that one speaking in tongues is speaking to God and not men, because no one else understands. In verse 4, he says that the one speaking to God is only building himself up and not anyone else. In verse 5, he says that the church cannot be built up by speaking in tongues unless there is interpretation. (We should note that—1 Corinthians mentions the gift of interpretation of tongues; something not mentioned in Acts.) In verse 6, Paul said that if he spoke to the church in tongues, it wouldn't profit them. In verse 13, Paul tells those who speak in tongues to pray for the gift of interpretation, since the one doesn't do much good without the interpretation. In verses 16-17, he says that no one can say amen to your worship if it's in tongues, since they won't understand and therefore are not edified. In verses 18-19, Paul says he didn't want to speak in tongues in the church (though he could), but would rather speak normally so that he could teach others.

The overarching theme through all of this is that tongues cannot be understood, at least without interpretation, and therefore, they cannot be used to build up the church. Verses 23-24 also note that tongues do not aid in evangelizing those outside the church. Those who speak in tongues cannot be understood by others. It is possible that they didn't understand themselves. In verse 14, Paul says that if he prayed in tongues, “my understanding is unfruitful.” And he contrasts that, in the next verse, with praying with understanding. “My understanding is unfruitful” could mean that it produced no fruit in others, because—you know—no one else understood. But it could mean that my understanding, that is, my mind, is unfruitful; it is doing nothing because it is not involved at all.

Having said all that, it should be clear that this does not resemble my description of Pentecost at all. The overarching theme in 1 Corinthians 14 is about people not understanding. Therefore, we have to conclude that my picture of Pentecost was wrong or that 'speaking in tongues' has a different meaning in 1 Corinthians than Acts.

Perhaps, Pentecost went more like this. Perhaps we had Peter preaching in Latin and being heard by the Romans; and then over here, you had John preaching in Egyptian and being heard by the people from Egypt, and then over here, you had James speaking Turkish to the people from Turkey. In other words, my original model suggested a miracle of understanding, enabling people to comprehend another language; this model, however, suggests a miracle of languages, where people suddenly become able to speak in a language they never learned. The term for this is xenoglossia.

And if that was the case, then we could understand 1 Corinthians 14 this way--that the gift of tongues was the gift of language. Assumably, this church conducted its services in Greek (since it was a church in Greece and Greek was the most common language of the 1st century Mediterranean world and would be the one most likely to be known by the largest group of people). But God gifted some people with the ability to speak in other languages. Perhaps, like on the day of Pentecost, one of them suddenly got up and started speaking Egyptian. However, unlike at Pentecost, there was no group of people from Egypt standing there to listen. And so it wasn't much use unless someone else could translate Egyptian into Greek.

What of the other possibility? It could be that whatever happened at Pentecost was something different from what was happening at Corinth. The word 'tongues' could easily be used to mean different things and there is no direct connection between Pentecost (and the other relevant passages in Acts) and what happened at Corinth, besides from both involving the work of the Holy Spirit—and everything in the Christian life involves the work of the Holy Spirit.

And you could argue that there are many differences between Acts and 1 Corinthians. In Acts, at least two instances occurred around pivotal moments in church history, whereas in 1 Corinthians, it seems to have been an ordinary part of the life of the church. And if you believe that baptism of the Spirit is entire sanctification or something else beyond that, then it seems a little odd that it would be such a significant issue in a church that was noted for its carnality (though when Paul says “ye are yet carnal,” he obviously doesn't mean every person in the church, so there isn't necessarily a contradiction.) 

So if speaking with tongues, here in 1 Corinthians, is something different from what happened at Pentecost, then what is it? The standard answer is glossolalia. Glossolalia literally means speaking in tongues, but in a more general, religious context, it means speaking something else entirely; something that is not a known, human language. (As opposed to xenoglossia, though these terms are not always mutually exclusive.) Remember what we talked about in 1 Corinthians 13:1: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” Some associate the tongue or language of angels with some kind of supernatural, heavenly language—as opposed to ordinary, human languages. Barclay describes it thus: “A man became worked up to an ecstasy and in that state poured out a quite uncontrollable torrent of sounds in no known language. Unless these sounds were interpreted, no ne had any idea what they meant.” 

Now, we should note that there are churches today that believe in glossolalia, that claim to speak in this kind of supernatural language. That is what most people associate with the term 'speaking in tongues.' But even if you believe that this is what was happening in the early church, it does not follow that modern claimants truly have this gift. It is clear that in biblical times, some people had the gift of prophesying the future; that does not necessarily mean that many (or any) Christians today have that gift.

It should also be mentioned that some believe glossolalia is a work of grace or a sign of a work of grace and that all Christians can and should possess it. But to my reading, Paul portrays this gift—whatever it is—as being a gift to be used for the good of the church, on the same level as every other gift (or even on a slightly lesser level)--not as a universal spiritual goalpost. In verse 5, Paul says that it would be good for every Christian to speak in tongues, but it would be better for every Christian to prophesy. On that ground, prophecy should be the third work of grace, not glossolalia. In 1 Corinthians 12:29-30, Paul asks: “Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” Again, speaking in tongues is listed as one among many gifts, and it is implied that it is not practical for every Christian to possess it, even if it might theoretically be good.

In conclusion, I don't think we have enough data to say exactly what was happening in the Corinthian church; what speaking in tongues meant for them. Most likely, it was either speaking in other human languages or speaking in some kind of special, supernatural language, a sort of spiritual language of worship. And in either case, it is open to debate whether this is a gift that God still gives to the church today or whether it was limited to the early church, as apostleship was.

The bottom line is that this gift was causing confusion in the church; whatever it meant to speak in tongues, it was something that most other people couldn't understand. And that's why this passage is still relevant—because even aside from tongues, this passage teaches a lot about what church worship is, what it should be, and (especially) what it shouldn't be.

Now we have to briefly discuss the other gift mentioned in this passage, the thing that Paul contrasts to speaking in tongues—and that is the gift of prophecy. This is something we've talked about multiple times, so I'm not going in-depth here. A prophet is someone who speaks for God, someone who delivers a message. It can be a message that predicts the future, but it can also be a message about the present, about how people ought to live, and what they should do.

Having said all that, we need to look at verse 1, which lays out the main ideas of the passage. In the first part of the verse, Paul connects back to chapter 13. That chapter was all about love and its value, and so he transitions here by exhorting them to follow after love.

There is a very practical reason why love is the most important, and it is because love provides a foundation and a context. In chapter 12, we saw how the use of spiritual gifts could lead to strife and disunity. Gifts do not lead to love. But love should lead to the gifts. If we follow after charity, that will lead to desiring spiritual gifts. The gifts exist to be in the service of love. It's interesting how this verse mirrors 1 Corinthians 12:31 “But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.” And here we have “follow after charity” (that is, the “more excellent way”) and then “desire spiritual gifts.” The point is that it is right to desire to be gifted, it is right to want to contribute something to the church, but only when it done in the context of love.

The end of verse 12 establishes the supremacy of prophecy—that of all the spiritual gifts, this is the one you should most desire. And especially, prophecy is better than speaking in tongues. 

But why? Why is prophecy better than other gifts? Because it's so impressive? Because it will give you a high position in the church? Because it's cool? No, not really. So why? Why does Paul see prophecy as superior? Because it edifies or builds up the church?

Earlier, we reviewed everything Paul says about speaking in tongues and noted that the recurring idea is that one who speaks in tongues cannot be understood, and therefore cannot help the church. In verse 4 we have this contrast laid out: “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.” 

To be given the ability to get up and speak another language—whether it was xenoglossia or glossolalia—that would be impressive. That would be a dramatic show of God's power. But that doesn't help the church. Prophecy does.

And that is why I said this passage is still relevant. As I've said before, I'm inclined to believe that God does not often bestow these spiritual gifts on the modern church; rather, these were intended for the church in its formative period. And so, neither speaking in tongues nor prophecy is really a factor we deal with. But there are two important points in this passage that are still very relevant to the church today.

The first point is that gifts which are used in the context of church worship must be used for the sake of the church and not for the sake of the individual. “The criterion of any gift is its value to the Church.” (Beacon Bible Commentary, 447) 

Over and over in this passage, Paul makes this point. Prophecy is superior because it helps the church. In verse 3, he says that prophecy can speak to men for “edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” The NET Bible translates that: “strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.” In verse 6, Paul says that his words would not be helpful unless they came “by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?” There is considerable debate about what Paul means by these specific words here, but the general picture is clear—these are things that can help the church. These are gifts that can build up the church.

But speaking in tongues, as such, only builds up the one with the gift. Verse 4 says that the one speaking in tongues edifies himself. Usually, 'edify' has a positive connotation, but the NET Bible argues that may not be the case here. In other words, the man who speaks in tongues may be only trying to build himself up—build up his reputation and standing, not his own spiritual life, and certainly not the spiritual life of the church. That might not be the case. Maybe the man who was speaking in tongues was getting some spiritual value from it. But if nobody else in the church was getting help, then it really didn't have a place in the church. 

That's why we have the advice of verse 12. Many people in the church were zealous, that is, passionate about spiritual gifts. And so Paul tells them to desire and seek those gifts which would build up the church, because that's what really matters. Those who could speak in tongues, specifically, were to ask God to grant them the ability to interpret; if they could translate, then they could speak a useful and understandable message to the church. That's why Paul himself, though he possessed the gift of tongues, preferred not to use it—because, at least in most cases, it wasn't as useful as plain ol' regular preaching.

This ties back to the theme of unity in chapter 12. The church is like a body where each limb and organ has a part to play. Each part must think of the good of the whole body. There are some very specific situations in life where it is useful to be able to kick. But these are comparatively rare. If your leg were so proud of its kicking ability that it just spent every minute kicking, that would cause inconvenience and problems for the rest of the body. That's (seemingly) what some in the Corinthian church were doing. They were so proud—or perhaps just so excited and passionate about—their particular gift that they were using it to the detriment of the church.

And what Paul is saying, in a somewhat more involved and subtle way, is 'don't do that.'

Now we can look at the second big message of this passage. The foundation of church worship is understanding. That is the thing that divides tongues from prophecy. Paul makes this clear in verse 2—speaking in tongues may have its values, but its fatal flaw is that no one understands it. And without understanding, there can be no growth or worship.

Verses 7-11 form a sort of parenthesis within the passage in which Paul illustrates this idea. He uses the example of music. Music cannot communicate or be understood in the way words can; music is far more emotional and less rational than speech. And yet even in music, there must be clarity. If you sit down at a piano and just strike keys at random, then no one will know what song it's supposed to be. 

And if this is true of music in general, it is even truer with music that has to communicate something specific. In verse 8, Paul references the use of music in the military. Traditionally, trumpets were used to communicate across an army, playing different tunes to indicate various actions. For that to work, the trumpet had to play a definite, recognizable tune. If you just blew into the trumpet at random, the soldiers wouldn't know what to do.

And if this is true of music, it is even more true of speech. If our words can't be understood, then no one knows what you're saying. If you can't understand someone, or they can't understand you, there can be no communication. In verse 10, Paul says: “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” This seems to mean that there are many different languages in the world, but each of them is dependent on understanding—the person speaking attempts to communicate something, and the listener has to hear and understand. That is the foundation of all communication.

Suppose you were in a foreign country and walked up to a group of people who were all speaking another language, a language you didn't understand. And as you were standing there listening, they all started laughing. You could understand that they were amused about something and probably guess that someone had told a joke. But you couldn't laugh at the joke; you couldn't judge whether or not it was funny; you could never repeat it to someone else, because you didn't understand it. Suppose they all were speaking with raised voices and narrowed eyes. You could probably guess that they were angry about something. But you couldn't share in their anger. You could not judge their case or attempt to avenge their wrong, because you couldn't understand. If they all had big smiles on their face, you could probably guess they were happy and that something good had happened. But you could not share in their joy or seek it for yourself, because you do not understand their words. Understanding is the foundation of communication.

And if this is true in general, then it is also true in the church. Suppose a man had received an unusual answer to prayer or had received a spiritual touch of some kind. And so on Sunday, he came and testified about it, but he testified in some foreign language nobody understood. His gratitude and worship for God are good, but it isn't helping anyone else. Anyone in the church who doesn't understand his words will not gain anything from his testimony. They can't even say 'Amen,' because they don't understand what he said.

Understanding is the foundation of church worship. Of course, there is a spiritual aspect, an internal aspect. As Paul said in the last chapter, the highest words would mean nothing without love. We must pray with the spirit and sing with the spirit—with a genuine spiritual dedication to God. But in the context of the church, that spiritual sincerity is not enough. We have to speak and be understood; we must pray with the understanding and sing with the understanding. In chapter 12, we saw the importance of unity for the church; in chapter 13, the importance of love. This chapter reminds us of the importance of clarity—everything in the church should aim at being clear and understandable.

In verse 20, Paul says: “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” There are some things it is good to be ignorant about, to be inexperienced in. “In malice be ye children” should be translated as “be babies” or “be infants.” We should have no skill or experience in malice and the ways of sin. There are some ways in which a Christian should be as innocent and ignorant as a baby. But only in some ways. A statement like that is no excuse for immaturity or childishness. In understanding—the ability to understand and to communicate the things of God—we should seek to be fully grown up and matured. A child has more understanding than a baby, but he still must grow up and gain the understanding of an adult. That is what we should be seeking. 

That brings us to this question: if speaking in tongues was such a useless gift, then why did God give it in the first place? We do have to remember what Paul said in chapter 12: every part of the body is important, even those that don't seem as important. Even if speaking in tongues were the lowest spiritual gift (which isn't what Paul says), that still doesn't mean it's useless. But if it has a point, then what is it?

And that's where we get to the most confusing part of this passage. In verse 22, Paul states that tongues are not primarily intended for the church, but rather for unbelievers, unlike prophecy, which is intended for the church and not for unbelievers. But then in verses 23-24, he seems to say that even for unbelievers, tongues are useless and only prophecy can help. In other words, that prophecy is better than tongues, not just for edification, but also for evangelization. 

So how do we make sense of that?

In Isaiah 28, God, speaking through Isaiah, is condemning the wicked people of Israel, people who were lost in self-indulgence and indolence. God had wanted, had tried to teach the people of Israel as a parent teaches a child. But we have these ominous words in Isaiah 28:11-12: “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.” God had wanted to speak a message of rest and comfort to the people, but they refused to listen. And so God promised to speak to them with another lip and another tongue, one which they wouldn't understand. Most commentators take this as referring to foreign occupation. Part of Israel had already been taken captive by Assyria, and the rest would be taken by Babylon. They would be under the control and under the power of other nations that spoke strange languages. But this wasn't just a thing that happened to happen; this was God's judgment. It was a harsh lesson, but it was necessary because the people refused to hear the clear and understandable words of the prophet and the law. This is the passage Paul references in verse 21.

This leads to the statement that tongues are a sign to them that believe not. The word 'sign' is often used in the Bible to refer to a supernatural act that points to or indicates something. Remember how some came to Jesus seeking to see a sign? It's the same word as here. 

But before we connect those dots, we have to talk about a moment from the life of Paul. When Paul and his companion were at Philippi, they were accused of being troublemakers and, as such, were beaten and thrown into jail. Acts 16:26-27 tells of what happened that night: “And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.”

The jailer was frightened awake at midnight by a sudden earthquake—something strange and terrible. Added to that shock was the fact that the jail had broken open; he naturally assumed all the prisoners had escaped. As the jailer, he would be held responsible, and so he was driven to commit suicide rather than face that.

And then Paul called out to him, telling him that everything was fine and nobody had escaped. This was the jailer's reaction: “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:30-31)

There is nothing to indicate that the jailer had any knowledge or interest in Christianity before that night. Perhaps he had some incidental knowledge—enough to know that Paul and Silas claimed to be representatives of God. But every indication is that if it were not for that earthquake, he would have simply gone about his day; that he never would have had any reason to speak to Paul and Silas on anything but a business level.

The earthquake was a sign. As a natural event, it would shake anyone. If he recognized it as supernatural, that would be even more of a shock to the system. That, combined with the personal consequences that it could have had, was enough to make him stop and think. So far as we can tell, earlier, he had no interest in Paul and Silas aside from their being his prisoners. Now he is asking them for spiritual guidance. That would not have happened without the earthquake.

But once the earthquake happened, once he was standing before Paul and Silas, asking what he needed to be saved—at that point, if Paul, instead of answering, had called down another earthquake, it wouldn't have helped anything. Those already awake do not need a wake-up call. The jailer needed a sermon, not a sign. The jailer was saved because Paul preached a clear message to him, one that he understood.

Signs and wonders cannot edify or evangelize. What they can do is shake people up enough that they are willing to listen—and not even always that. We see the same thing with the people of Israel. God used the dramatic events of the Babylonian captivity to wake them up and catch their attention. It did lead to at least some change in their beliefs and attitudes. But none of them would have been necessary if they had just listened to God in the first place.

On the day of Pentecost, the apostles could have preached in a usual manner, perhaps with some interpreters. But not as many people would have listened. But when God showed Himself in such a dramatic way—with the rushing wind and fire and the speaking in tongues—it got the attention of a large group of people. But that attention would have accomplished nothing if it weren't for the fact that they had a clear and comprehensible message.

And so here: speaking in tongues (assuming that it was something miraculous) might catch the attention of someone who, otherwise, would never even think about Christianity. But it, on its own, could not make someone a Christian. And if someone was already interested in Christianity—enough to come to church—then he would gain nothing from hearing them speak in tongues. But if he came into church and heard God's word, he would be convicted of the truth and of his own sin, and that would lead to recognizing that God is present. It is the truth that brings salvation.

Wonders and signs have their place. God used them in the first century; I believe God still uses them sometimes. But they, in and of themselves, cannot save a soul. They can lead a horse to the water. But only the water itself—the water of truth—can actually quench its thirst. 

So, in the church, in both worship and evangelism, it is essential that we be clear and understandable. Because only God's word—as it heard and understood—can really build up the saved or reach out to the lost.